ABDUL NAIM QURAISHI Vs. MASI UDDIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner -tenant challenges the order dated 18th July, 2003, passed by the appellate authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure -'6' to the writ petition, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner -tenant under Section 22 of the UP. Act No. 13 of 1972, here -in -after referred to as the 'Act' and the order dated 19th February, 2001, passed by the prescribed authority, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure -'4' to the writ petition, whereby the prescribed authority allowed the application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act filed by the respondents -landlord.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondents -landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act for the release of the accommodation in question, which is a shop, on the ground that the accommodation is bona fide required by the landlord in order to settle his elder son Samiuddin, who is at present doing nothing. It is further stated in the application that Samiuddin was carrying on a business, which has to close down because of the heavy losses and he wants to start a fresh business of glass bangles and the youngest son, who has passed B.Com examination and could not get any job and there is no chance of any Government job. Both the sons will start a new business to be settled in case the shop in question is released in favour of the landlord. The further assertion is that because of no employment or business, Samiuddin, who is already married and has two children and a wife, they are in mental tension and the marriage of the youngest son could not be settled down because of the lack of any engagement. The petitioner -tenant denied the aforesaid allegations made in the application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act by the landlord and raised objection that in fact the landlord does not require the shop in question and further that the statement in the application that the landlord does not possess any other property in vacant condition is totally incorrect. In fact the landlord has several properties and many of them are in vacant condition, where he can settle down his sons. It is further submitted that many properties belong to the landlord have been let out by the landlord and the landlord can get any property vacated and settle his sons over there. It was therefore, submitted by the tenant that the need of the landlord is not bona fide. It is again submitted that in fact the sons of the landlord do not have any interest in carrying on any business and they do not have any experience also. They in fact want to act in Films. On the comparative hardship, the petitioner -tenant has also submitted that he has no other building or accommodation where he can shift his business, which he is carrying on for past 40 years and he is not able to get any other job, therefore the application filed by the respondent - landlord is mala fide and liable to be rejected.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -tenant submitted before me that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are perverse, but nothing could be demonstrated as to how the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are perverse. It is settled view of laws that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal over the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, as the apex Court has held in the case reported in 2004(2) JCLR 400 (SC) : (2004) 3 SCC 682, Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash. In this view of the matter, I find no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore, has no force and is liable to be dismissed.